Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
London’s Murder Rate Surpasses NYC
Saw this story on The Daily Wire:
Both cities have roughly the same population; in the month of February, 15 people were murdered in London, whereas NYC recorded 14 homicide deaths, reports The London Times.
London is set to outpace NYC’s murder rate for March as well. “By late last night there had been 22 killings in the capital, according to the Metropolitan police, against 21 in the US city,” notes the Times. Eight of those murdered in March happened in a span of just seven days.
Since 2014, excluding victims of terrorism, the number of London murders has risen by a stunning 38%.
It’s stunning, that London has suddenly become such a violent city. If only there where a technology, that a citizen could carry for self-protection, that would keep a knife-wielding attacker at bay…
Old joke, You know what the medical term is for someone who attempts armed robbery with a knife in the United States?
Gunshot victim.
Published in Guns, Policing
Sounds like Londoners need to have a serious conversation about common sense gun laws to keep the violence in check.
Because any country without those strict laws is -at a minimum- just as anarchic as Somalia.
Enough is enough time for common sense knife reform.
Well, two data points is all any reasonable person needs, but fwiw:
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/national/the-cities-with-the-highest-murder-rates-in-the-us/collection_0e7dd367-2f62-5822-b849-97f4e9a43e3d.html#1
Some of which surprised me.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936
And
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-42690960
Perplexing
I know its slim pickings. 2 months and only a few random acts separate the statistics, but considering that since 1800 the murder rates in London and NYC where widely divergent, the recent closeness is noteworthy.
Well considering that in the US knife to handgun murders are like 1:8 maybe introducing more guns to London might spike their murder rate rather than decrease it.
I’m curious about the data in the link to the Rapid City Journal provided above by @zafar
Is it something unique about those particular cities or is a relatively high murder rate just a feature of most cities of more than 100,00? Is it like friction … too many molecules bumping into one another at higher densities?
Just out of curiosity, does anyplace break down those numbers by legally owned handguns vs illegally obtained?
There is another problem contributing to the high murder rate in London. Citizens do not have the right of self-defense in Britain. If you use deadly force against an attacker – even in your own home – you may be charged with a crime.
And this is a crying shame. Fend off a potential rapist, and go to prison because you injured him? Who says the British are more civilized than we are?
Crime is going up and the Tories are cutting back on police under Teresa May and Amber Rudd who have been Home Dept. Secretaries since the Tories took over in 2010. Both are disasters.
That may be true but having Sadiq Khan as mayor is far worse.
Didn’t the people of London elect Khan their mayor? They get what they elect.
The murder rate is only catching up with the overall rates of violent crimes in London. London is a far more violent city than New York. You can feel in on the streets. Reported rapes (outside of organized rape gangs) are 300% higher. Home burglaries (including night burglaries) typically run 600% higher. Street robberies run about 60% higher. How often do you witness street fighting in New York? Maybe once a month. In London, it’s an everyday thing.
I recommend they do the experiment to find out. But no fair if they just arm the bobbies better.
In the U.S. or in general? Because there are very large cities—Tokyo comes to mind—that have low rates of murder.
Once you dig into it, you find that the murders in any given American city (Chicago being an obvious example) are not evenly distributed across the city, but are concentrated in certain neighborhoods—indeed, within specific city blocks. The same is true for New York, and yes, there are demographic characteristics of those affected/afflicted neighborhoods that are consistent from city to city.
I would love to know if this is true of London as well.
A high—or increasing—murder rate (excluding terrorism) should be understood as a proxy measure of other crimes, including unreported crimes. So if a neighborhood has a high murder rate, it will also boast high rates of attempted murder, aggravated assault, simple assault and domestic violence. The chances are extremely good that those unfortunate enough to live in these areas are also subject to increased risk of rape, armed robbery, robbery-with-menaces, burglary and car theft, all the way down to littering.
Most people in Chicago live in a relatively safe, clean, pleasant city. My guess is that most people in, say, Wimbledon do as well.
I’ve always wanted to visit London, but I’m afraid I’d get mugged, try to defend my wife and myself, and end up in an English prison while the assailant goes free.
Guard: A little jam with your hardtack, Mr. Stad?
Stad: Please. Oh, and the tea is fabulous!
Of course, I want to know whether immigration has affected this?
Theodore Dalyrymple has described the behavior of the welfare-dependent poor in Britain—and these are almost identical to the behaviors of welfare-dependent American poor people, with no Legacy of Slavery to explain it.
You can’t have a welfare state without a police state. This is a good part of how it works.
There are analogous behaviors when it comes to corporate welfare.
The Tories are essentially open borders under May and Rudd at the Home Office as well. All part of the same politically correct mentality the Tories have shown.
The point is – Labor, Tories – there is little difference.
London was, until recently, a very safe city. I wonder why Englishmen have suddenly become so violent? Perhaps this is a situation similar to Sweden, where Swedish men went from universally peaceful to violent rapists in just a few years. How odd. Something in the water?
Or perhaps some other explanation? I wonder how a person could fix this problem?
Well, that didn’t take long:
The three cities in England with the highest crime rates are also the cities with the highest Muslim population. Manchester, Rotherham, Leeds are all in the top ten for crime and have large immigrant Muslim populations. Glasgow—# 1 for crime nowadays, apparently, has seen its Muslim population more than double since 2001.
So, yes. There is apparently something unique about these cities. Or rather, not unique at all.
The acid attacks seem to be carried about by young men against other men. Often used to intimidate rival gang members.
Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, has literally called for tighter controls of acid.
The British people, apparently, think the best idea is to stop importing people who are statistically more likely to commit crimes.
“Carl looked at a recent YouGov poll of Britons’ attitudes of immigrants, which showed Britons believe criminal history to be the most important characteristic when deciding whether an immigrant should be allowed into the country. The most important being “criminal record (major/violent)” and the second “criminal record (minor/non-violent).”
That same YouGov survey also asked British adults which nations they would like to see immigration reduced from. The three highest were Turkey, Romania and Nigeria, and the immigrants Britons were least opposed to were from Australia, Ireland, and Canada.”
Turns out that the people they’d just as soon exclude are indeed the people who are disporportionately represented in arrest statistics.
Before we shriek “racism,” let’s just point out that Australians and Canadians come in all colors and, as we know intimately here at Ricochet, might even be Muslim. The problem isn’t race and it’s not, strictly speaking, religion. It’s culture.
I think you will find the majority of violence in both cities is due to Muslims, judging by the names cited in many of the articles. The MSM is now calling refugees in Europe “Oxford men” or “Swedes” even if they came from Syria and happened to end up in Oxford or Stockholm.
By the way, the demographics don’t bode well for Muslim crime rates. There are a lot more young Muslims, and the little baby boys whose births caused variations of Mohammad to be the most popular boy’s name in Briton are going to enter into the age group most likely to commit (and be the victim of) violence.
The overall crime rate may drop, but areas with high concentrations of young men, particularly bored, alienated young men (whose “mainstream” enculturation arguably consists of learning to regard themselves as the victims of racism) aren’t going to be nice places to live anytime soon.
Not certain, but I would imagine that while you know all the gunshot victims you don’t always find the gun used or the perpetrator. So it might not be possible to know those numbers. My question is how many illegal guns start off as legal ones? When people buy gun illegally the source of those guns has to be legal at some point right? They are either stolen or purchased from legal distributors under false pretenses and resold illegally. Right? So ultimately don’t most illegal gun purchases just come out of the supply of legal guns?
If you look at crime statistics on county to county level, you would find that 50% of murders are committed in just 2% of the counties.
3142 counties, there are just 63 that are problematic…
Call in the national guard? Put a guardsmen on every street corner with an M16?
Shut down open air drug markets?
Setup checkpoints with drug sniffing dogs and pat downs?
It’s called “theft”. Our local paper does a police blotter column, and it seems the majority of stolen weapons are taken from cars, then homes. So yes, an argument could be made drying up the legal guns will get rid of the illegal guns, but that is a totally bogus argument. You might as well say getting rid of cars will reduce the number of deaths by automobile accidents. While true, it would mean getting rid of the ability of people to go where they want when they want.
Americans will never give up their guns, just as they won’t give up their cars . . .
It would actually be a good experiment to do if you wanted to understand the causes of murder rates between the two nations. Is it culture or opportunity. If it is culture then more guns shouldn’t move the needle though it might change the weapon used ie. less knives used. But if it is opportunity than we should see a spike because it is easier to kill with a gun than a knife.
Then we could argue if it is culture that banning guns in the US would just result in more stabbings not fewer deaths. Though maybe it is easier to survive a stabbing than a gun shot. So even then you might have less death.
This would be true social science. Where we finally treat people like lab animals in pursuit of materialistic knowledge. A rationalist utopia.
Maybe for now… but anyone with a decent machine shop can manufacture one, and 3d printing will only make it harder to control.